DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Applicant’s amendments filed on 08/21/2025. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 16-21 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-12, 15, and 17-19 have been amended. Claims 2, 9, and 16 have been canceled. Claims 22-24 have been newly added. Any examiner’s note, objection, and rejection not repeated is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures, and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may also apply. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 22, the claim recites “the computer system of claim 1, publish the task-based workflow, wherein…”. The phrase “publish the task-based workflow” sets forth an active step or method limitation within the body of a system claim. The examiner suggests adding “the at least one processor further configured to” or similar language before the publish step.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner et al. (US 20210065078 A1) hereafter Gardner in view of Kim et al. (US 20180113781 A1) hereafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Gardner teaches:
A computer system comprising: a memory (Paragraph 189 and 192; “The computer readable medium can be a machine-readable storage device, a machine-readable storage substrate, a memory device”, “Generally, a computer will also include, or be operatively coupled to receive data from or transfer data to, or both, one or more mass storage devices for storing data, e.g., magnetic, magneto optical disks, or optical disks”); and at least one processor operably coupled to the memory (Paragraph 191; “The processes and logic flows described in this specification can be performed by one or more programmable processors executing one or more computer programs to perform functions by operating on input data and generating output”);
and configured to: receive a set of rules for generating a workflow that chains one or more tasks associated with one or more microapps into the workflow (Paragraph 44; “When a system receives a workflow from the workflow publishing server 110, the workflow can be customized before it is run. In general, workflows each specify a set of operations to be performed”, where the customization includes a set of conditions which correspond to the applicant’s rules, disclosed in Paragraph 58, “The workflow listing 114 may include information about each of the workflows within the workflow listing 114 as is discussed in more detail below with respect to FIG. 2. This information may include metadata, such as a name of the workflow, a purpose of the workflow or an error that the workflow addresses, a description of the operations within the workflow (e.g., which may also include required conditions for the workflow to be performed)”. Further, Paragraphs 39-40 disclose a lightweight redistributable self-contained module containing executable workflow logic that can be edited, customized, and executed to perform user defined actions or API calls which performs the same actions as a microapp which is a small self-contained configurable application unit that performs a specific function in a system.);
receive an indication of a task to be completed (Paragraph 96; “A workflow can indicate a sequence of multiple operations that are to be performed in a predetermined order. Examples of operations include checking a software version of a server, checking the most recent software version, comparing software versions, downloading software, uploading software, identifying data, uploading data, storing data, downloading data, deleting or clearing data, comparing data, determining destinations, and/or determining sources”, where operations correspond to the applicant’s task);
generate a task-based workflow for the task to be completed based upon the set of rules, wherein the task-based workflow provides one or more users with an indication of a task to be completed and which of the one or more microapps to use to complete the task, wherein each of the one or more microapps are configured to access data and functionality of an underlying application without launching the underlying application to complete the task (Paragraph 68; “If the observed server conditions/pattern did not match a kn5wn defect, then an analysis would be done for these new conditions/new pattern, and a new workflow may be generated to address these new conditions/new pattern”, where the workflow contains metadata corresponding to the applicant’s indication of tasks to be completed and applications to use, as disclosed in Paragraph 148, “For example, if a particular user is a developer for server performance applications, the user may be limited to modifying workflows that deal with monitoring or analyzing server or server environment performance. The system or system users may determine if a workflow is associated with a particular application, project, or area based on metadata associated with the workflow. This metadata may include, among other things, a description of the workflow and/or the issue that workflow is trying to solve”, where workflows are created for tasks, as disclosed in Paragraph 127, “This allows for the creation of complex workflows for tasks that would normally be manually performed”. Paragraphs 39-40 further describe a workflow that is packaged in a lightweight redistributable module, executes commands or invokes functions of underlying software applications or tools, accesses data or resources, and performs specific automated tasks based. Thus, the workflow module functions analogously to a microapp, as both are modular self-contained executable units that perform defined tasks, operate via interaction with underlying applications or system resources, and provide access to those underlying functions without launching the entire parent application environment, as evidenced by Paragraph 39 disclosing “the commands that a workflow instructs to be performed can be commands to invoke functions of software already installed on a computer system”, demonstrating that the workflow accesses and utilizes functionality of the underlying application through direct invocation rather than through a launch of the full application environment. As such, the workflow provides programmatic access to the underlying application functionality without launching the parent application);
monitor interaction between the one or more users and the task-based workflow (Paragraph 177; “the operations that the workflow module specifies can include operations to monitor for certain conditions, detect when the conditions occur, and take actions in response. The workflow module may be configured to initiate a communication, e.g., with one or more users (e.g., of a device performing the workflow or another device), when the particular condition occurs”, where the monitoring for certain conditions and module initiating communication with the user corresponds to the applicant’s monitoring interaction between users and the workflow);
wherein the monitoring comprises: monitoring interaction between the one or more users and an application associated with at least one task in the task-based workflow (Paragraph 177; “the operations that the workflow module specifies can include operations to monitor for certain conditions, detect when the conditions occur, and take actions in response. The workflow module may be configured to initiate a communication, e.g., with one or more users (e.g., of a device performing the workflow or another device), when the particular condition occurs”);
and receiving an indication that the at least one task in the task-based workflow has been completed (Paragraph 96; “A workflow can indicate a sequence of multiple operations that are to be performed in a predetermined order. Examples of operations include checking a software version of a server, checking the most recent software version, comparing software versions, downloading software, uploading software, identifying data, uploading data, storing data, downloading data, deleting or clearing data, comparing data, determining destinations, and/or determining sources”, where operations correspond to the applicant’s at least one task in the workflow).
update the task-based workflow to indicate one or more completed tasks based upon the monitored interaction to create an updated workflow (Paragraph 160; “Upon running of the workflow 506 (512), performance of the first operation (“Operation 1”) is initiated. Accordingly, the server 502 checks the network status (514). The network may be 540 or may be a different network. The network may be hosted by the server 502 or may be hosted by an external server, such as a third-party server. Here, the server 502 obtains the network status 542 which indicates the server hosting the network is unavailable. Performance of Operation 1 is now complete”, where the change in network status sends the update indication to the server containing the workflow that the monitored task was completed, corresponding to the applicant’s updating a task-based workflow to indicate completed tasks based on a monitored interaction to create an updated workflow);
and provide an indication of the updated workflow to the one or more users wherein providing the indication comprises modifying a graphical user interface displayed on the computing system to include user interface elements corresponding to the updated workflow rather than the task-based workflow (Paragraph 94; “each of the workflows indicates a set of computer operations to be performed (302). The computer operations may include downloading software, checking for software updates, updating software, installing software, running software, importing data, exporting data, checking for new or different data, running a script, generating data, generating a notification, sending a notification, etc” which “may be conditional on the satisfaction of one or more requirements. These requirements may include the performance of another operation, the processing of a workflow, a time having elapsed, a triggering event, etc” corresponds to the claimed limitation because workflows perform computer operations that may include generating and sending notifications which corresponds to providing an indication of processing of a workflow, corresponding to an updated workflow. The generation or sending of a notification implies that the system updates the GUI to display the new notification, constituting a modification of the GUI displayed on the computing system. Execution of workflows depends upon the completion or processing of other workflows. When a prior workflow is processed, a new updated workflow becomes active. Notifications associated with that new workflow correspond to UI elements corresponding to the updated workflow rather than the task-based workflow).
While Gardner implies a microapp by having the components of a microapp, Gardner does not explicitly teach a microapp; or determining that the one or more users have completed the at least one task in the task-based workflow by performing one or more actions within the one or more microapps associated with the at least one task.
However, Kim teaches:
A microapp (Paragraph 120; “Additionally, according to one aspect, one or more computer programs that when executed perform methods of the disclosure provided herein need not reside on a single computer or processor, but may be distributed in a modular fashion among different computers or processors to implement various aspects of the disclosure provided herein”, where the distributed modular nature of the programs correspond to the applicant’s microapps).
determining that the one or more users have completed the at least one task in the task- based workflow by performing one or more actions within the microapp associated with the at least one task (Paragraph 13; “gathering contextual information associated with the action while the computing device is waiting to update the user interface responsive to the action performed by the user”, where the waiting for a condition to update the user interface corresponds to the applicant’s determination, and the action performed by the user corresponds to the applicant’s performing one or more actions within a microapp);
Gardner and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of workflow management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Gardner with Kim to have the monitored application be a microapp and include functionality to determine a user has completed a task in the workflow. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that microapps would allow for independently deployable resource units that simplify maintenance and updates across the cluster. Independent scaling would allow for more efficient resource allocation which would appeal to a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking performance optimization. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that determining when a task is complete is necessary to trigger notifications or next-step activations, which are standard in UX design.
Claim 8 contains the same limitations as claim 1, directed towards a method. Claim 8 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 1.
Claim 15 contains the same limitations as claim 1, directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium. Gardner teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium (Paragraph 189; “Embodiments of the invention can be implemented as one or more computer program products, e.g., one or more modules of computer program instructions encoded on a computer readable medium for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus. The computer readable medium can be a machine-readable storage device, a machine-readable storage substrate, a memory device, a composition of matter effecting a machine-readable propagated signal, or a combination of one or more of them”).
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Gardner in view of Kim teaches the computer system of claim 1. Gardner teaches:
determine at least one additional task to add to the workflow based upon the action taken by the at least one of the one or more users (Paragraph 80; “The user 124 may be able to modify a workflow by entering code that is then added to the computer code corresponding with the workflow, e.g., in order to add one or more new operations to the workflow”, where new operations correspond to the applicant’s additional task from the user entering code, corresponding to the applicant’s action taken by the user);
and update the task-based workflow to include the at least one additional task (Paragraph 80; “The user 124 may be able to modify a workflow by entering code that is then added to the computer code corresponding with the workflow, e.g., in order to add one or more new operations to the workflow, add one or more conditions to the workflow or to individual operations in the workflow, etc”, where new operations correspond to the applicant’s additional task from the user entering code, corresponding to the applicant’s action taken by the user).
wherein the at least one additional task is further determined based on one or more of: analysis of historic use information for the one or more users, or analysis of information for system users other than the at least one of the one or more users (Paragraph 132; “Usage data may by current or historical… including current or past users” corresponds to the claimed limitation because the system accesses and analyzes historical usage patterns to inform subsequent operations for one or more users, fulfilling the analysis of historic use information for the one or more users limitation.);
Kim teaches:
determine an action taken by at least one of the one or more users (Paragraph 19; “identifying a task in the plurality of clustered events being performed by the user”).
Claim 10 contains the same limitations as claim 3, directed towards a method. Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 3.
Claim 17 contains the same limitations as claim 3, directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Gardner in view of Kim teaches the computer system of claim 1. Gardner teaches:
the at least one processor further configured to: receive an updated set of rules (Paragraph 44; “When a system receives a workflow from the workflow publishing server 110, the workflow can be customized before it is run. In general, workflows each specify a set of operations to be performed”, where each workflow contains a set of rules as disclosed in Paragraph 58, “The workflow listing 114 may include information about each of the workflows within the workflow listing 114 as is discussed in more detail below with respect to FIG. 2. This information may include metadata, such as a name of the workflow, a purpose of the workflow or an error that the workflow addresses, a description of the operations within the workflow (e.g., which may also include required conditions for the workflow to be performed)”, where the receiving of a workflow means receiving an updated set of metadata for the workflow, corresponding to the applicant’s receiving an updated set of rules);
generate an updated task-based workflow based upon the updated set of rules (Paragraph 68; “If the observed server conditions/pattern did not match a known defect, then an analysis would be done for these new conditions/new pattern, and a new workflow may be generated to address these new conditions/new pattern”, where the new workflow generated based on the observed pattern corresponds to the applicant’s generate an updated task-based workflow based on the updated set of rules);
and provide notification to the one or more users of the updated task-based workflow (Paragraph 164-167; “the server 502 determines that two hours have elapsed since the email notification 520 was sent. Because the two hours have elapsed, the second condition for performing the Operation 2C is satisfied. Accordingly, performance of Operation 2C continues, which results in sending a dashboard notification 528 to users having a security or permission level of “Security Level 2” through a management dashboard (518)”, where the management dashboard notification corresponds to the applicant’s indication of the updated workflow to one or more users).
Claim 11 contains the same limitations as claim 4, directed towards a method. Claim 11 is rejected for similar reason as those of claim 4.
Claim 18 contains the same limitations as claim 4, directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Gardner in view of Kim teaches the computer system of claim 1. Gardner teaches:
The computer system of claim 1, the at least one processor being further configured to: determine an action taken by at least one of the one or more users when completing at least one task in the task-based workflow (Paragraph 65; “An analysis of these error reports, error logs, and/or server manager logs may reveal workflows that can reduce user input (e.g., if it is determined that server managers or users are repeatedly doing tasks that could be automated by a workflow, if it is determined that the one or more errors are due to human input error, or if it is determined that the one or more errors are due to inconsistent human oversight)”, where the analysis of logs corresponding to user actions corresponds to the applicant’s determination of actions taken by users when completing at least one task of the workflow);
determine a recommended task to include in the workflow based upon the action of taken by the at least one of the one or more users (Paragraph 65; “The workflow publishing server 110 may filter out workflows from the recommended workflows if they are incompatible with the respective third-party server, e.g., the workflow requires a different software version than what is installed on the server. The workflow publishing server 110 may provide these recommended workflows to the respective third-party servers as part or all of the workflow listings 114a and 114b”, where filtering out incompatible third party servers based on logs containing user actions corresponds to the applicant’s determination of recommended tasks to include based on actions of users);
and provide a recommendation to the at least one of the one or more users to include the recommended task in the workflow (Paragraph 65; “The workflow publishing server 110 may provide these recommended workflows to the respective third-party servers as part or all of the workflow listings 114a and 114b” which may be provided to the user as disclosed in Paragraph 71, “In stage (D), after having received the workflow listing 114a, a user 124 of the client device 122 may select one or more workflows from the workflow listing”).
Claim 12 contains the same limitations as claim 5, directed towards a method. Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 5.
Claim 19 contains the same limitations as claim 5, directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 5.
Regarding claim 22, Gardner in view of Kim teaches the computer system of claim 1. Gardner teaches:
publish the task-based workflow (Paragraph 176; “the client device 122 or the server 120 can send a request for the workflow module to the workflow publishing server 110. In response, the workflow publishing server 110 may provide the requested workflow module to the server 120 and/or to the client device 122” where the provided response regarding the completion of a workflow task, the request for the workflow module, is a form of notification that corresponds to the publishing of a task-based workflow);
wherein the publishing creates notifications for the one or more users based on at least one of: the one or more users being associated with completion of at least one task, or the one or more users being associated with completing or advancing the next task within the workflow (Paragraph 127; “Users, such as administrators, can develop or modify a workflow to include user interaction components. These components may call for messaging or otherwise notifying a user, requiring user input, or otherwise communicating with a user. The user may be a specific user, belong to a specific group of users, or may have a requisite security or permission level” and “The techniques disclosed also improve reliability by introducing these user interaction components into the workflows which help by, for example, notifying users, ensuring that the operation safe by requesting confirmations or requiring approvals” corresponds to the one or more users being associated with completion of at least one task. Gardner describes a system that develops, modifies, and runs workflows, where the act of running a workflow corresponds to publishing it within the system for execution. Gardner further discloses that workflows include user interaction components for notifying users tied to operations within the workflow. Since workflows are structured as a sequence of tasks/operations, these notifications occur when a task completes corresponding to the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 23, Gardner in view of Kim teaches the computer system of claim 1. Gardner teaches:
wherein the set of rules comprises a plurality of initiating events that trigger execution of a rule and one or more workflows (Paragraphs 84-85; “The operations of the workflow may be conditional on one or more events being satisfied. These conditions may be temporal conditions, e.g., a date, an elapse of a certain amount of time, etc. These conditions may be satisfied through a triggering event, e.g., the occurrence of an error or a particular error, an instruction or action by a server manager or administrator, a state of the server system, a server load threshold being met, etc.” corresponds to the claimed limitation because it teaches that workflows execute in response to one or more triggering events which serve as initiating conditions that trigger workflow execution, corresponding to a set of rules that define multiple initiating events that trigger execution of a rule and associated workflows).
Regarding claim 24, Gardner in view of Kim teaches the computer system of claim 23. Gardner teaches:
wherein the memory stores additional computer readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computer system to: automatically initialize, based on detecting an occurrence of one of the plurality of initiating events, one or more tasks associated with a particular task-based workflow, each of the one or more tasks corresponding to a function within an underlying application, wherein the task- based workflow further comprises assigning one or more users with a task and the one or more microapps for completing the task (Paragraphs 84-85; “The operations of the workflow may be conditional on one or more events being satisfied. These conditions may be temporal conditions, e.g., a date, an elapse of a certain amount of time, etc. These conditions may be satisfied through a triggering event, e.g., the occurrence of an error or a particular error, an instruction or action by a server manager or administrator, a state of the server system, a server load threshold being met, etc.” and “Similarly, the workflow itself may be conditional on one more events being satisfied before it is processed” explicitly disclose that the workflow operations are conditioned on events and are triggered by the occurrence of such events, corresponding to initializing tasks based on detecting triggering events in a workflow. It further describes workflow operations as specific actions or functions that are to be performed, mapping to tasks corresponding to application functions. Further, it teaches assigning workflow operations to users based on conditions and events, which corresponds to assigning tasks to users in a task-based workflow, and is further supported by the use of user permissions and conditions implying tailoring tasks to particular users. Paragraphs 39-40 disclose a lightweight redistributable self-contained module containing executable workflow logic that can be edited, customized, and executed to perform user defined actions which performs the same actions as a microapp which is a small self-contained configurable application unit that performs a specific function in a system).
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner in view of Kim, further in view of Pal et al. (US 20190220438 A1) hereafter referred to as Pal.
Regarding claim 6, Gardner in view of Kim teaches the computer system of claim 5. Gardner teaches:
wherein the at least one processor being configured to determine a recommended task to include in the workflow comprises the at least one processor being further configured to: determine a first recommended task based upon the set of rules (Paragraph 63; “In some implementations, the workflow listings 114a and 114b are listings of recommended workflows that the workflow publishing server 110 selects as being recommended for the servers 120 and 130. In these implementations, the workflow publishing server 110 may receive (e.g., periodically) error reports or error logs experienced by the server 120 and/or the server 130, and server manager logs from the server 120 and/or 130. The workflow publishing server 110 may analyze these error reports, error logs, and/or server manager logs, and recommend one or more workflows to the respective third-party server”, where the analysis of error reports/logs and/or server manager logs to recommend one or more workflows corresponds to the applicant’s recommended task based on a set of rules);
determine a second recommended task based upon historic use information for the at least one of the one or more users (Paragraph 65; “An analysis of these error reports, error logs, and/or server manager logs may reveal workflows that can reduce user input (e.g., if it is determined that server managers or users are repeatedly doing tasks that could be automated by a workflow, if it is determined that the one or more errors are due to human input error, or if it is determined that the one or more errors are due to inconsistent human oversight)”, where the human input errors correspond to the applicant’s historic use information for the users);
determine a third recommended task based upon information for system users other than the at least one of the one or more users (Paragraph 66; “In some implementations, the administrator 104 may select the one or more workflows to recommend to the servers 120 and 130 based on the results of analysis performed by the workflow publishing server 110 on the respective error reports, error logs, critical log files (e.g., logs for an application server, logs for an intelligence server, logs for queue producers, logs for queue consumers, etc.), core files, crash dumps, and/or server manager logs”, where the logs for queue consumers correspond to the applicant’s information for system users other than the user). Gardner in view of Kim does not teach comparing the recommended tasks to determine the task to provide to the users.
However, Pal teaches:
compare the first recommended task, the second recommended task, and the third recommended task to determine the recommended task to provide to the at least one of the one or more users (Paragraph 76; “In some configurations, a computer can receive a user selection of a selected application from the ranked list of applications. In some configurations, the selection of an application can be made by a computing device based on a comparison of a confidence score with a threshold”).
Gardner, Kim, and Pal are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of task recommendation and management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Gardner in view of Kim with Pal to compare the plurality of recommended tasks to determine what task to recommend to the user. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a singular most recommended task to the user(s) and to do so, employ the methodology of comparing the plurality of possible recommended tasks, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 13 contains the same limitations as claim 6, directed towards a method. Claim 13 is rejected for reasons similar to those of claim 6.
Claim 20 contains the same limitations as claim 6, directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claim 20 is rejected for reasons similar to those of claim 6.
Claims 7, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner in view of Kim, further in view of Pal, further in view of Matsuoka et al. (US 20220318698 A1) hereafter referred to as Matsuoka.
Regarding claim 7, Gardner in view of Kim, further in view of Pal teaches the computer system of claim 6. Gardner in view of Kim, further in view of Pal does not teach determining a weighted average for each task, then comparison of the weighted averages.
However, Matsuoka teaches:
wherein the at least one processor being configured to compare the first recommended task, the second recommended task, and the third recommended task comprises the at least one processor being further configured to: determine a first weighted average associated with the first recommended task (Paragraph 36; “In some instances, each representative of the identified set of representatives 106 may be assigned a score corresponding to the various factors corresponding to the degrees or vectors of similarity between the member's and representative's demographic information. For instance, each factor may have a possible range of scores corresponding to the weight assigned to the factor. As an illustrative example, the various factors used to obtain representative scores may each have a possible score between 1 and 10. However, based on the weight assigned to each factor, the possible score may be multiplied by a weighting factor such that a factor having greater weight may be multiplied by a higher weighting factor compared to a factor having a lesser weight. The result is a set of different scoring ranges corresponding to the importance or relevance of the factor in determining a match between a member 118 and a representative. The scores determined for the various factors may be aggregated to obtain a composite score for each representative of the set of representatives 106”, where the composite score across each of the factors then averaged corresponds to the applicant’s weighted average);
determine a second weighted average associated with the second recommended task (Paragraph 36; “In some instances, each representative of the identified set of representatives 106 may be assigned a score corresponding to the various factors corresponding to the degrees or vectors of similarity between the member's and representative's demographic information. For instance, each factor may have a possible range of scores corresponding to the weight assigned to the factor. As an illustrative example, the various factors used to obtain representative scores may each have a possible score between 1 and 10. However, based on the weight assigned to each factor, the possible score may be multiplied by a weighting factor such that a factor having greater weight may be multiplied by a higher weighting factor compared to a factor having a lesser weight. The result is a set of different scoring ranges corresponding to the importance or relevance of the factor in determining a match between a member 118 and a representative. The scores determined for the various factors may be aggregated to obtain a composite score for each representative of the set of representatives 106.”, is performed for a plurality of representatives, corresponding to the applicant’s second recommended task);
determine a third weighted average associated with the third recommended task (Paragraph 36; “In some instances, each representative of the identified set of representatives 106 may be assigned a score corresponding to the various factors corresponding to the degrees or vectors of similarity between the member's and representative's demographic information. For instance, each factor may have a possible range of scores corresponding to the weight assigned to the factor. As an illustrative example, the various factors used to obtain representative scores may each have a possible score between 1 and 10. However, based on the weight assigned to each factor, the possible score may be multiplied by a weighting factor such that a factor having greater weight may be multiplied by a higher weighting factor compared to a factor having a lesser weight. The result is a set of different scoring ranges corresponding to the importance or relevance of the factor in determining a match between a member 118 and a representative. The scores determined for the various factors may be aggregated to obtain a composite score for each representative of the set of representatives 106”, is performed for a plurality of representatives, corresponding to the applicant’s third recommended task);
and compare the first weighted average, the second weighted average, and the third weighted average (Paragraph 36; “These composite scores may be used to create the ranking of the set of representatives 106”, where the ranking in the set of representatives corresponds to the applicant’s comparison of the weighted averages).
Gardner, Kim, Pal, and Matsuoka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of task management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gardner in view of Kim further in view of Pal to incorporate the teachings of Matsuoka and further include the weighted average determination and comparison techniques. The incorporation of Matsuoka’s comparison process would have predictably improved the performance of the system by allowing the system to make more informed and normalized comparisons among recommended tasks.
Claim 14 contains the same limitations as claim 7, directed towards a method. Claim 14 is rejected for reasons similar to those of claim 7.
Claim 21 contains the same limitations as claim 7, directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claim 21 is rejected for reasons similar to those of claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/21/2025 have been fully considered but some are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are summarized below:
Claims 1-21 are not directed towards a mental process and therefore the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 should be dropped.
Gardner in view of Kim does not teach monitoring user interaction with microapps. The level of user involvement during a workflow in Gardner does not rise to performing each workflow task on a microapp.
Gardner fails to describe determining additional tasks based on one or more of analysis of historic use information for the one or more users, or analysis of information for system users other than the at least one of the one or more users, as recited by amended claim 3.
Dependent claims are submitted as allowable for at least the above reasons.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with points B, C, and D.
Regarding A), applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Regarding claim 1, the human mind is not equipped to process microapp workflows. Therefore, the independent claims do not recite a mental step. Thus, the 101 analysis ends at step 2A, prong 1 with a conclusion of eligibility. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are dropped.
Regarding B), claim 1 does not recite any specific degree of independence or execution environment for the microapp, only that it is associated with a task and that the user performs one or more actions within it. Further, the claim does not limit how the monitoring occurs. Monitoring microapps for a particular condition that results from or corresponds to user activity falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “monitoring user interaction with the microapp”. Gardner Paragraph 177 expressly teaches that the workflow module includes operations to “monitor for certain conditions, detect when the conditions occur, and take actions in response”, where such conditions include events associated with communications with one or more users. The monitoring detects when communication or acknowledgement event occurs constituting monitoring interactions between the user and the microapp. Therefore, contrary to applicant’s arguments, Gardner in view of Kim teaches monitoring user interaction with microapps.
Regarding C), claim 3 recites, in relevant part, “wherein the at least one additional task is further determined based on one or more of: analysis of historic use information for the one or more users, or analysis of information for system users other than the at least one of the one or more users”. Gardner explicitly discloses that the workflow includes operations to access usage data, where it may include “current or historical usage data” and may include data “associated with current users or past users”. Thus, Gardner teaches or at least suggests analysis of historical use information for users as claimed. Moreover, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification, “analysis of historic use information for one or more users” encompasses analysis of previously collected usage information, such as historical system or user activity data. Therefore, contrary to applicant’s arguments, Gardner teaches determining additional tasks based on one or more of analysis of historic use information for the one or more users.
Regarding D), independent claims 1, 8, and 15 remain rejected for the reasons stated above. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, because the dependent claims depend from an unpatentable claim and does not add limitations that overcome the rejection, it likewise remains rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Myers et al. (US 20210073026 A1) discusses the utilization of workflow libraries containing workflow steps, or tasks, to determine a predetermined workflow set that is most likely to satisfy the workflow request, similar to the applicant’s recommendation system.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH P TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6926. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 5:30 a.m. - 2 p.m. PT, F 5:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. PT, or at Kenneth.Tran@uspto.gov.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, April Blair can be reached at (571) 270-1014. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENNETH P TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196